By
ALAN S. BLINDER
"THE
NEW YORK TIMES"
CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies
of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax
cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor
and middle class. The two men also
disagree on health care, energy and many other
topics.
Such differences are hardly
surprising.这种差别一点都不令人惊奇。Democrats and
Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for
as long as there have been Democrats and
Republicans 只要还存在着民主党和共和党就.... Longer, actually. Remember
Hamilton versus Jefferson?
Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two
parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the
post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in
a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor
of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help
voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.
I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide.
Simply put, the United States economy
has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than
under Republicans.
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the
dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it
is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948
to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34
years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real
gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican
presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would
yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than
almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.
这1.14个点的差别，如果维持8年，将使人均收入增加9.33个点，这几乎比任何人能从减税中所能得到的收益要大的多。
Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two
parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited
leverage影响力 over the nation’s economy.
Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil
prices, to name just two
influences,仅举两个例子，are far more powerful than fiscal policy.
Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us,
past results are no guarantee of future
performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are
stubborn things. You bet against them at your
peril.你可以赌一赌，但后果自负。
The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great
Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s
work.
It is well known that income inequality in the United States has
been on the rise for about 30 years
now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor
Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire
60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly
downward under Democrats, thus
accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans
have won five of the seven elections going back to
1980.对于美国的穷人来说，一个不好的消息就是，共和党人在1980年以来的7次总统竞选中获胜了5次。
The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor.
To get a more granular
look,从更细致的角度看，Professor Bartels studied the postwar history
of income gains at five different places in the income
distribution.
The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all
families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a
plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor.
Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40
percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And
similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th
percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the
nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That
dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold
John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to
$180,000.)
The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a
remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in
the White House, lower-income families
experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes
were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster
income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White
House — thus widening the gap in income.
The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared
almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90
percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little
stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were
enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile
fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43
percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual
rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5
percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by
23.2 percent.
The sources of such large differences make for a slightly
complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the
pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for
most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do
relatively better in a high-growth economy.
Beginning
with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller
and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role.
然而，从里根总统执政开始，（经济）增长的差别已经很小了，而赋税和交通政策起到了更大的作用。We know, for
example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for
upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition,
Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and
Republicans have been more hostile toward
unions.
The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history
is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster
economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would
lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of
the Obama menu don’t you like?
Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at
Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has
advised many Democratic politicians.
今日生词本
era 时代
delineate 描述
at stake 在危急关头
Simply put, 简单说来，
stark 明显的
whiz-bang 杰出的，优秀的
dreary 沉闷的
atypical 非典型的，反常的
prospectus 指南，说明书
stubborn 倔强的
at your peril 后果自负
consciousness 意识，知觉
unearth 发现，揭露
stunning 令人震惊的
granular 细致的
percentile 百分数
threshold 门槛，起点
fare 费用，票价
stake 风险
well-to-do 富裕的，富人
Cited
from:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?ex=1377921600&en=100869b16f8f1a09&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
加载中，请稍候......
加载中…